“change of opinion”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,292 judgments

The decision most relied on for change of opinion is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on change of opinion

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court

439

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court

382

citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court

366

citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

CIT v. Foramer France

264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court

253

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court

243

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

Judgments citing change of opinion

Portescap India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 7479/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2019-20 Portescap India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No. 101, Tower Ii, Income Tax, Seepz Sez, Vs. Circle-2(3)(1), Andheri East, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Seepz S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400096. M.K.Road, Pan : Aaack4896K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pranay Gandhi A/W. Shri Lekh Mehta, For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 43B

passing the rectification order u/s 154 to disallow the deduction claimed u/s. 10AA of the Act and the same will clearly amount to change of opinion and that too without providing necessary opportunity to the assessee. It was accordingly submitted that the disallowance of deduction so claimed by the assessee

Sivasundar Selvakumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

account of disallowance of mortgage discharge amount under section 48. The reassessment, therefore, travels beyond the recorded reasons and constitutes a mere change of opinion on computation, which is impermissible under law. Further, non-furnishing of recorded reasons despite request is contrary to law laid down

Rane Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2790/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2790/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

information were available before the A.O during the original assessment and reopening based on the same set of information would amount of change of opinion which is invalid. The Ld. AR also submitted that the CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal has inadvertently considered the said ground as a general ... notice that through ground No.4 (page 2 of CIT(A) order) the assessee has raised the legal contention that the reopening based on change of opinion which is not adjudicated by the CIT(A) stating that it is general in nature not warranting separate adjudication (page

Jorss Bullion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 4758/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

under: "Section 147/148: assessment reason to believe formation of belief reassessment on basis of information from insight portal reopening on borrowed satisfaction and change of opinion assessee furnishing all details in response to notices and questionnaire notice without jurisdiction notice and subsequent proceedings invalid." (ii) Nila Infrastructure Ltd. V/s. ACIT451 ... catch-note is reproduced as under: "Reassessment notice after four years condition precedent reason to believe income escaped assessment cannot be based on change of opinion no suppression of any information at time of assessment proceedings -assessee's objections to reassessment brushed aside without assigning reasons no independent finding recorded

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Jorss Bullion Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4004/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

under: "Section 147/148: assessment reason to believe formation of belief reassessment on basis of information from insight portal reopening on borrowed satisfaction and change of opinion assessee furnishing all details in response to notices and questionnaire notice without jurisdiction notice and subsequent proceedings invalid." Reassessment notice income escaping (ii) Nila ... catch-note is reproduced as under: "Reassessment notice after four years condition precedent reason to believe income escaped assessment cannot be based on change of opinion no suppression of any information at time of assessment proceedings -assessee's objections to reassessment brushed aside without assigning reasons no independent finding recorded

Starshine Land Developers Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

Kelvinator of India Ltd. and Marico Ltd. is misplaced. Those decisions deal with the scope of reopening and change of opinion. The present controversy is not about validity of reopening but about lack of enquiry in the reassessment proceedings. Likewise, the decisions relied upon

Bhavani Ceramics Pvt Ltd, Mehsana vs. ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

deal with this aspect at all while passing an Order in spite of arguing this point vehemently during virtual hearing. There was change of opinion by the assessing officer on three occasions before making an addition of Rs. 45,08,517. The Order u/s 143 read with 147 was passed ... submitted the following date chart: I.TA No. 977/Ahd/2024 Bhavani Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was a change of opinion which is not applicable for reopening u/s. 148 of the Act. The ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Niko Resources Ltd. 51 taxman.com

Virchow Petrochemical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1191/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

already considered at the time of completion of original assessment and therefore reopening of assessment on the same issue is mere a change of opinion and hence invalid. Ground No.12: On the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no tangible material before the Assessing Officer during period from ... without any new material coming to his notice after the conclusion of the original assessment, based on a mere “change of opinion” reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee company that was originally framed by the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/12/2018

Mark Steels Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

after considering all the entries available on record, the reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was merely a change of opinion and directly in conflict with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India ... confirmation, books of account etc. filed by the assessee and hence the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act on a mere change of opinion is devoid of legally sustainable merits. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in having accepted the AO's clarification in the remand

Bangalore Union Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

ld.AR submitted that the re-assessment proceedings are liable to be set aside on the ground that the same amounts to “change of opinion”. In the absence of any fresh material or tangible information coming to the AO's possession, the reopening of the assessment based on the same ... facts amounts to a mere change of opinion, which is not legally sustainable. Insofar as the addition made u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act is concerned, it was contended that the shareholding pattern of the promoters as on 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2012 had been duly examined during the original assessment proceedings

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

said order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as per such provision. She further held that the argument regarding change of opinion or replacement of view did not stand to reason in the present case, because for that there should be an opinion or the forming

Meena Jewels and Pearls, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1225/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ought to have appreciated that the reopening of assessment by the AO is on change of opinion only. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that mere reason to suspect by the A.O cannot be equated to reason to believe that income has escaped assessment ... Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the reopening based on the suspicion is not sustainable in law and it is also a change of opinion when the Assessing Officer has already completed the re-assessment in the case of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned

DCIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that reopening was based on ‘borrowed satisfaction' and ‘change of opinion'. In the case while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act also the Assessing Officer referred the information received in the case

Fattesing Punaji Dhabre, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax – 2, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal CIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the basis of change of opinion. Fattesing Punaji Dhabre 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal CIT was justified in setting aside the original ... officer has taken reasonable, plausible and legally sustainable view, if the same is not acceptable to ld. PCIT, the same is nothing but change of opinion. Thus, the assessee is also succeeded on merit. Considering the facts, that we have allowed appeal of assessee on two primary submissions

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Bullions and Commodities India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3915/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148

trite law that intimation under section 143(1) does not amount to an assessment in the strict sense, and therefore, the doctrine of “change of opinion” has limited application in such circumstances. In any event, even otherwise, there is nothing on record to suggest that the issue forming the basis ... reopening had been previously examined or consciously adjudicated. The reassessment proceedings, therefore, cannot be invalidated on the ground of change of opinion. 7.4 The material referred to in the recorded reasons cannot be characterised as vague or non-specific or roving or fishing enquiry. The information emanating from the Investigation

Balaji Bullions and Commodities India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3755/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv

Section 133ASection 143(1)

assessment in the strict sense, section 143(1) does not amount to an assessment in the strict sense, and therefore, the doctrine of “change of opinion” has limited and therefore, the doctrine of “change of opinion” has limited and therefore, the doctrine of “change of opinion” has limited application ... proceedings, therefore, cannot be adjudicated. The reassessment proceedings, therefore, cannot be adjudicated. The reassessment proceedings, therefore, cannot be invalidated on the ground of change of opinion. invalidated on the ground of change of opinion. 7.4 The material referred to The material referred to in the recorded reasons cannot

Mata Bala Sundri Rice Mill, Village Kanipla, District Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar, Yamunagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 906/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mata Bala Sundri Rice Mill, The Ito, C/O Jagdamba Rice & General Mills, Vs Ward-3, Village-Kanipla, Po-Sarawan, Yamuna Nagar. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aatfm9813G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

account of which it has been underassessed or assessed it too low a rate. Therefore, this re-opening is just based on the change of opinion which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 2 are allowed and we quash the re-assessment order

Rohitkumar Chinubhai Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir. 5(2) Now DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1961/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment proceedings. The reopening after such a long lapse of time, based on the same material, was argued to be nothing but a change of opinion. It was also contended that the sanction under section 151 was mechanical and invalid, as evident from the information obtained under the Right ... Therefore, the reopening of assessment in the present case cannot be said to be invalid or based on a mere change of opinion. 19. As regards the contention that the Department is taking contradictory stands by rejecting the purchaser’s claim of deduction under section

Saurabhbhai Rohitbhai Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir. 5(2) Now DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1960/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

been upheld by ld. CIT(A) to be bad in law, since it tantamount to ld. Assessing Officer resorting to change of opinion for the purpose of making reassessment u/s. 147. On the merits of the case, derivative loss has been held to be a business loss as against view ... fully satisfied with the reply and claim of the assessee. It is only after completion of the assessment that ld. Assessing Officer changed his opinion and issued reopening notice without having any fresh material in hand. Accordingly, it was submitted that since there has been no fresh material in hand